Dentoskeletal changes in Class II malocclusion patients after treatment with the twin block functional appliance

Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics

Volumn 16, Issue 5, 2011, Pages

  Brunharo, Ione Helena Vieira Portella ^a   Quintão, Cátia Abdo ^a   de Oliveira Almeida, Marco Antonio ^a   Motta, Alexandre ^b   Barreto, Sunny Yamaguche Nogueira ^c  

^a STATE UNIVERSITY OF RIO DE JANEIRO   (Brazil)

^b FLUMINENSE FEDERAL UNIVERSITY   (Brazil)

^c Brazilian Dental Association   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Class II malocclusion; Functional appliance; Growth

Indexed keywords

EID: 84856913713     PISSN: 21769451     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Shaw WC. The influence of children's dentofacial appearance on their social attractiveness as judged by peers and lay adults. Am J Orthod. 1981;79(4):399-415.
2. Clark WJ. The twin block technique. A functional orthopedic appliance system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1988;93(1):1-18.
3. Tulloch JF, Phillips C, Proffit WR. Benefit of early Class II treatment: progress report of a two-phase randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998;113(1):62-72, quiz 73-4.
4. Dolce C, McGorray SP, Brazeau L, King GJ, Wheeler TT. Timing of Class II treatment: skeletal changes comparing 1-phase and 2-phase treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007;132(4):481-9.
5. Voudouris JC, Kuftinec MM. Improved clinical use of Twinblock and Herbst as a result of radiating viscoelastic tissue forces on the condyle and fossa in treatment and longterm retention: growth relativity. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000;117(3):247-66.
6. Morris DO, Illing HM, Lee RT. A prospective evaluation of Bass, Bionator and Twin Block appliances. Part II: The soft tissues. Eur J Orthod. 1998;20(6):663-84.
7. Lund DI, Sandler PJ. The effects of Twin Blocks: a prospective controlled study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998;113(1):104-10.
8. Mills CM, McCulloch KJ. Treatment effects of the Twin Block appliance: a cephalometric study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998;114(1):15-24.
9. Parkin NA, McKeown HF, Sandler PJ. Comparison of 2 modifications of the Twin-Block appliance in matched Class II samples. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001;119(6):572-7.
10. Toth LR, McNamara JA Jr. Treatment effects produced by the Twin-Block appliance and the FR-2 appliance of Fränkel compared with an untreated Class II sample. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999 Dec;116(6):597-609.
11. Trenouth MJ. Cephalometric evaluation of the Twin-Block appliance in the treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusion with matched normative growth data. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000;117(1):54-9.
12. Fishman LS Radiographic evaluation of skeletal maturation. A clinically oriented method based on hand-wrist films. Angle Orthod. 1982;52(2):88-112.
13. Hassel B, Farman AG. Skeletal maturation evaluation using cervical vertebrae. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995;107(1):58-66.
14. Brunharo IP, Quintão CA. O aparelho Twin Block: técnica de confecção e aplicação clínica. Rev Bras Odontol. 2001;58(6):373-7.
15. Quintão C, Helena I, Brunharo VP, Menezes RC, Almeida MA. Soft tissue facial profile changes following functional appliance therapy. Eur J Orthod. 2006 Feb;28(1):35-41.Epub 2005 Aug 19.
16. Caldwell S, Cook P. Predicting the outcome of Twin Block functional appliance treatment: a prospective study. Eur J Orthod. 1999;21(5):533-9.
17. Vig PS, Vig KW. Hybrid appliances: a component approach to dentofacial orthopedics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1986;90(4):273-85.
18. Koroluk LD, Tulloch JF, Phillips C. Incisor trauma and early treatment for Class II division 1 malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003;123(2):117-25; discussion 125-6.